AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.,Total duty,"Rs.14,62,12,894/-
2.,Total interest,"Rs.20,99,94,406/-
,Total liability,"Rs.35,62,07,300/-
 In the recent orders/judgements, the Hon'ble Tribunals have condoned the delay even after the time period of elapse of ninety days, citing that",,
the amended Regulation 12 (2) is directory.,,
 In the matter of Twenty-First Century Wire Roads Ltd., an application was filed by one AMA Agencies Pvt. Ltd. before the Hon'ble",,
Principal Bench of the NCLT, New Delhi for condonation of delay in filing their claim. The insolvency commencement date was 12th September",,
2018 and the claim was filed by AMA Agencies on 5th March, 2019. When the application was being heard, the CoC was still in the process of",,
considering the resolution plans submitted. Therefore, the Plon'ble NCLT was pleased to condone the delay and direct the RP to consider the claim. A",,
similar order was passed in another application for condonation filed in the same matter.,,
The Principal Bench of the NCLT, New Delhi, went one step further in the matter ofE delweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Adel",,
Landmarks Ltd. and held as follows:,,
The rejection of claim on the ground of delay is not sustainable because the provisions has been held to be directory....We wish to make it clear that all the",,
Resolution Professionals shall make a note of these repeated orders passed by NCLT clarifying that claim of an applicant, like the present one, could not be",,
rejected on the ground of delay as the provision has been held to be directory.""",,
 Interestingly, in State Batik of India v. ARGL Ltd. the Principal Bench of the Hon'ble NCLT, New Delh, wi hile considering an application of",,
similar nature filed by Central Board of Goods and Service Tax Department indicated that it was irrelevant whether the claim is considered or not,",,
since the government dues would always be reflected in the books of accounts of the corporate debtor and the RP/IRP would be required to take,,
cognizance of the dues as per the books of accounts. Therefore, the application was allowed. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein",,
below:,,
It is true that the regulation 12(2) after amendment has granted liberty to a creditor who has failed to submit the claim with the proof within the time stipulated",,
in the public announcement and such a claimant could submit the claim with proof to the IRP/RP on or before 90th day of Insolvency commencement date. The,,
aforesaid time obviously has expired as the CIR Process and in the present matter was commenced on 16.03.2018 and the claim were initially invited by fixing the,,
last date as 30.03.2018. It is strange situation which is adopted by the RP because in the books of accounts the governmental dues are always reflected. It is,,
nowhere stated as to how the claims which are to be filed alone are to be collated in terms of Section 21. First of all, as a matter of fact as the first step the IRP/RP",,
has to prepare the list in accordance with the books of accounts and then invite the claims otherwise the dues reflected in the books of accounts would be,,
rendered completely meaningless. It is only in case there is any discrepancy in the books of accounts that the claim needs to be modified or additions are required,,
to be made.,,
Therefore, we allow the application and direct the IRP/RP to collate the claim of the Central Board of Goods and Service Tax the needful shall be done within",,
three days.""",,
Hence, the question of delay of 217 days can be condoned? The Applicant had been informed of commencement of CIRP by the Respondent.",,
The Applicant has failed to establish the reason for the delay in submission of the claim. This led us to the questions that why not the Respondent / RP,,
take corigance of outstanding statutory dues as per book of accounts of the Corporate Debtor. The,,
Respondent has clearly stated that the alleged dues are not yet quantified and litigations under various authorities are pending. The Respondent has,,
also stated that the Resolution Plan is pending for approval before CoC. Hence, we are of the view that there is no merit in this application. The",,
Applicant has failed to reason out the delay in submission of claim, the quantified amount is also under dispute. Hence, at this fag end of CIRP, we",,
cannot entertain this application.,,
In view of the foregoing discussions, the IA/814/IB/2020 stands dismissed. No cost.",,